SynergistNOW Blog

Category : Education

My wife recently made a career change after having taught young children for many years. Her new position required her to immediately develop technology skills that those of us who work with computers every day take for granted. The learning curve was steep and the timeline for getting up to speed was short.

The experience was much like being dropped into a culture where you only know a few rudiments of the language. If you were in that situation, what would you do? Most likely you’d want to learn the basic phrases that would help you get through the day, and you wouldn’t have time or patience for anything like studying grammar. In my wife’s case, she needed to know how to finish the tasks before her, and she wasn’t interested in knowing what the software was capable of doing on a macro scale. She simply wanted step-by-step instructions on how to get the job done.

As adults, our learning is often driven by our immediate needs. We rarely have time to engage in studying the subject. Instead, it’s “here is my problem and I need a solution—now.” Think about it. What do most of us do when we have to quickly learn how to do something? We go to YouTube, search for an answer, and then watch the shortest videos first until we have enough information to finish the task.

You also see this is in preparation for tests. Quizzes and exams are essentially sampling methods, asking questions on a variety of topics to see whether the respondent can answer the majority of them correctly. If they can, it is presumed the respondent has sufficient understanding of the subject or has demonstrated competence. However, for some individuals, mastering the body of knowledge is secondary to simply passing the test. Their goal is to know what questions will be asked and have the answers ready rather than reviewing all the material and being prepared for any question that might be asked.

It takes time to absorb the many aspects of a new job. During the first few weeks you might sit in meetings where everyone is talking in jargon that seems incomprehensible. Over time, you learn the terminology, develop fluency, and eventually you don’t have to keep referring to cheat sheets as often as you did when you started.

That’s been the case at home. My wife and I spent many evenings this winter sitting at the kitchen table figuring out website management tools, publishing software, and registration systems. It tested my own learning abilities, forcing me to open unfamiliar software, quickly get my bearings, then figure out and explain the solution she was looking for. As she completed more tasks, she started to recognize patterns, find efficiencies, and gain context. I was fascinated by observing the learning process we both were going through.

Think about it the next time you’re faced with a situation where it’s all new to you. Embrace the challenge. Jump in, figure it out, keep working at it, and eventually you’ll find familiarity and confidence. You’ll also discover that the joy of learning comes from making ourselves find our way through the unknown.

How do you develop education on a topic when an accepted body of knowledge doesn’t exist?

In the early 2000s, the emerging topic in supply chain management was radio frequency identification (RFID). Most of the available information dealt with experimental research, engineering of chips, and speculation as to what this technology might be able to do. Then word came out that the Department of Defense was making a commitment to using RFID, followed by the news that Wal-Mart was requiring its top 100 suppliers to tag their pallets and shipments of goods with RFID chips. Suddenly it seemed that things shifted into high gear and there were questions galore about the many unknowns. Would RFID work in certain conditions? What sort of range did chips and sensors have? Were passive or active tags the way to go? There was angst about the cost of chips—but the die had been cast. If these bellwether organizations were embracing the technology, this was the future and everyone else would have to adapt. People wanted education, but there wasn’t enough established and accepted knowledge to be able to put together a session, much less a course. All we could do was to share what we were learning about the technology.

Fast forward to today, and you hardly hear about RFID because it’s part of our everyday world. The early concerns about cost and utility dissipated when the price of tags and equipment dropped, the reliability improved, and the acceptance of standards brought quality and consistency.

Is there an “RFID” in the practice of industrial hygiene today? Certainly there are areas where we have an idea of what the future might look like, but the body of knowledge isn’t yet fully formed. One example reminiscent of RFID’s debut is big data. We can grasp the concept—the availability of huge data sets—and once again, Wal-Mart and other major retailers are leading the way, as is the government (as evidenced by recent revelations of widespread intelligence gathering). Are we at a point where we can deliver education on established and accepted practices? Probably not yet, but we’re getting closer.

As NIOSH Director Dr. John Howard has stated, the implication of the growth of data is that the industrial hygienists of the future will need to have analytics in their skill set as a necessary complement to their knowledge of OEHS. Until the field becomes more defined, though, the approach to education about big data in the early going is to communicate what is known so far through articles, blog posts, research papers, and information sessions. These outlets start to define the territory. As knowledge and practices become more solidified, an accepted body of knowledge begins to take shape. Then, as the field of practice becomes established and the level of content expands, the opportunities for education begin to appear.

It’s fun to watch a new discipline come into being and to grapple with defining it in the early stages, accumulating the knowledge as it develops, and finally building enough of an understanding to be able to educate others. What glimpses of the future do you see coming over the horizon?

Recently a group of us gathered in a meeting room at AIHA headquarters to make selections for an upcoming project. We had received a large number of applications, and in reading through the submissions I was struck by how each one was excellent in its own way. That made the prospect of choosing all the more daunting, but thankfully the decision at hand wasn’t whether to accept or reject. Instead, we were simply identifying the ones that would start the project, knowing that over time there would be opportunities for all of the applicants.

It occurred to me that I’ve been making selection decisions for most of my professional life. My career began in college admissions, where each year brought a new cycle of recruiting and then choosing a freshman class. From late autumn through the winter months we read through thousands of applications and had to decide which ones would receive offers of admission. This was done with the realization that our decisions had an effect on the lives of the applicants. Whether or not they were accepted influenced how many options they had for their postsecondary education.

Years later I served on a selection panel for a national scholarship program. Our task was to narrow a pool of state winners to three finalists from whom the top recipient would be selected. Each one of the semifinalists was a high school student with an incredible story of overcoming seemingly insurmountable obstacles, turning their dreams into reality, or nurturing a talent into a burgeoning career. You couldn’t help but feel that they’d accomplished more in their 16 or 17 years than you’d done in your entire lifetime, but that didn’t change the task before us—we could only choose three.

My most recent job was for an association that puts on many conferences each year, which meant that there were session selection meetings happening all the time. I once submitted a proposal for a session that would be led by a couple of my co-workers and me. At the selection meeting, I made it clear that the same standards for selection would apply to my proposal as to everyone else’s. The group took my words to heart and after careful review they rejected my proposal. It would have been easy to pull rank and put my session into the conference, but the truth was that there were other proposals that were clearly better than mine.

Having been on both the selection side and the receiving end of the equation, I understand how difficult it is to make choices and to receive the results. We experience decisions in all aspects of our lives: elections, trials, job applications, even the officiating calls at sporting events. We saw it this year with the changes made to the schedule for AIHce 2017, resulting in fewer session slots being available and making the selection process more rigorous.

You can’t escape having to choose, but here’s what I’ve learned from these experiences. Keep the process public so people know how the decisions are being made; keep the deliberations private, so those making the selections can speak candidly with one another; take the job seriously and make the best decision you can; and be understanding and empathetic when communicating the outcome. It’s never easy, but at the very least you can feel better about your choices if you follow these principles.

Adriaan de Groot was a 20th-century psychologist who studied the cognitive processes of world-class chess players. His research found that when these individuals look at chessboards, they recognize familiar game configurations and foresee the subsequent moves and countermoves that might be made. Playing chess then becomes a matter of simply selecting the best option.

NBA player LeBron James has a similar ability to recall games he played in years ago with exacting detail. His eidetic memory allows him to anticipate the flow of the action because he “knows” where everyone will be positioned on the floor. He also remembers the moves opposing players made every time they played previously. Combine this with his prodigious knowledge of basketball history and you’ll understand why he is considered one of the foremost experts in the game.

A person doesn’t have to be a LeBron or a Garry Kasparov to be an expert, though. The word “expert” is equally applicable to a physician who can correctly diagnose a condition based on symptoms or lab results, or an emergency responder who can rapidly assess a crisis situation and know where to direct resources. These individuals draw on knowledge cultivated from years of education, experience, and practice. You probably know many experts, and you might very well be one yourself.

Novice learners in a discipline need foundational knowledge on which they can build their understanding, but experts have been there and done that. That makes a difference in the type of learning they seek. A comment that’s often seen on conference evaluations is that a particular session was “too basic; should be more advanced.” However, when you ask people to describe what a “more advanced” session might contain, many find it difficult to articulate what they’re seeking.

When someone has truly mastered their discipline, they want to interact with others who have similar expertise and face similar challenges. For example, CEOs like to talk to other CEOs because they understand each other’s situation, even though they might work in different fields. It’s probably the same in your world. If you’ve been in the business for a long time, you like having the opportunity to exchange ideas with others who have experience comparable to yours.

This is why learning experiences for seasoned professionals should provide opportunities to interact with one another. A presenter may know a great deal about the subject at hand, but he or she may not be the only person in the room with in-depth knowledge on the topic. Instead of having a “sage on the stage,” advanced sessions often have a “guide on the side” creating an environment where the audience can learn from and share with one another. It turns a room full of passive listeners into active participants engaged in their learning.

The next time you’re planning an education session for a room full of experienced pros, think about how to make them part of the discussion. Chances are you’ll end up with a richer learning experience for everyone, and one that they’ll remember.

A few weeks ago my wife and I went hiking with another couple. It was a beautiful early autumn day that provided great conversation and some much needed exercise. We started talking about our children and how we each still have one in college, and they said their daughter is a senior chemistry major who’s wondering what she will do after graduation. Without hesitation, I found myself urging them to have her look into a master’s in industrial hygiene. I started telling them what a fabulous career it is, especially for someone with a background in chemistry, and the next day I followed up with information about AIHA and graduate degree programs.

More recently, I was chatting with another friend and his daughter. I knew that she had just finished her undergraduate degree in biology, so I asked what she was doing now. She’s enrolled in a master’s program in public health, and the conversation gravitated to the courses she’s taking and, eventually, to industrial hygiene. While it isn’t part of her program of study, she had heard about IH and seemed interested in learning more.

I’ve been thinking about how many young people enrolled in undergraduate majors in science, technology, engineering, or math are not even aware of industrial hygiene as a potential area of study or career path. The AIHA members I talk with love what they do, but many of them say that they either discovered IH on their own or it was suggested to them by a teacher or a friend.

I started to wonder how much effort there has been to promote IH to young people at a time when they’re starting to think about their plans for postsecondary education. Have we, either as an organization or as individuals, done all we can to reach out to STEM students, either at the college or high school level, to suggest that they check out industrial hygiene as they’re looking at possible careers?

Last May, AIHA launched the IH Professional Pathway program to help IH professionals better understand their career options. Part of that program includes outreach materials to educate and inspire the next generation of industrial hygienists. If you aren’t aware, I encourage you to take a look and consider getting involved.

My own career began in college admissions, where I saw many freshmen arrive on campus with no clue about what they wanted to study. Sometimes all it took was a simple comment to get them to investigate a major they might otherwise have overlooked or never seriously considered.

I once had someone contact me to say thank you for encouraging her to take a course that ultimately led to her completing a graduate degree. I had no recollection of ever having done so, but my comment obviously made an impression on her. Then I realized that my own graduate degree came about because a friend suggested it, thinking the program might be of interest to me.

It’s been said that to teach is to plant seeds. Some take root right away and others blossom in their own time. If each of us were to actively seek out opportunities to plant the seed of IH in fertile minds, what might the harvest look like? Maybe it’s naïve to think that the future of the profession might lie with a simple effort like this, but then again, if we don’t try, we’ll never know. ​

There’s an oddly persistent idea that has been heard in the learning community for years. It’s the idea that if you broadcast the sessions from your conference, you run the risk of cannibalizing your face-to-face audience. After all, if someone can watch and listen to sessions from the relative comfort of their office, why​ would they spend time and money actually traveling to the event?

This question has been around since the early days of baseball. When radio came on the scene, there was concern among the owners that if people could listen to ballgames for free, they’d never buy tickets. Just the opposite happened. People were able to follow their favorite teams throughout the season, which built fan allegiance and created a surge in in-person attendance because radio strengthened the desire to be there in person.

I had a similar experience in 1976. While watching the first week of the Montreal Olympics on television with a group of friends, someone asked, “How long does it take to drive to Montreal?” Next thing we knew we were in a car and headed to Canada. We saw volleyball, track and field, and the marathon, we got autographs from gold medal winners, and we had the opportunity to mix and mingle with the international crowd. The television broadcast piqued our interest in being part of the experience.

The same thing happens with our virtual broadcasts of Fall Conference and AIHce​. It’s a way to share the essence of the conference with an online audience. The cost of technicians and equipment limits the number of sessions we’re able to broadcast, so we do our best to select ones that translate best to virtual delivery. Things like table exercises or group discussions might be engaging for live attendees, but they can leave an online audience sitting on the outside looking in.

Virtual conference facilitators play a key role. They are the conduit between the live and remote audiences. They interact via chat and ask questions of the live presenters posed by online participants. If you’ve ever been to a session and seen a camera on a tripod in the back of the room next to a table with a couple of people on laptops, you were looking at the virtual broadcast team.

Did you ever wonder what the virtual audience does when the in-person audience goes to lunch? At AIHce this year, online viewers watched prerecorded interviews with exhibitors to get a sense of who was represented on the expo floor. Our facilitators do a great job of planning content to help online attendees feel connected to the conference, and that’s reflected in the overwhelmingly positive feedback we’ve gotten from the virtual audience.

Do we ever feel that broadcasting sessions detracts from attendance? Not at all. Our virtual attendees tell us that it’s time away from the office or budget limitations that prevent them from traveling to the conference, but their first preference is to attend in person. That’s why we do all we can to make the online experience as valuable as possible and we continue to look for ways to improve it. After all, it’s the next best thing to being there.

I was talking recently with an AIHA member about the sessions he’d attended at various conferences. He lamented that even when valuable information is presented, the speaker’s delivery can leave much to be desired. “But,” he said, “I get it. We’re scientists; we’re boring.” His comment surprised me because while “boring” might be the stereotype, it doesn’t necessarily have to be the case.

Psychologists tell us that boredom occurs when we have difficulty focusing our attention, especially in a situation where we’re not in control. If you’re listening to a presentation that isn’t capturing your attention but you can’t leave the room, you’re likely to become bored. You might start daydreaming, yawning, or checking your phone for messages because you’re trying to find something to capture your interest. If the presenter isn’t engaging you in learning, you’re likely to tune out.

How many lectures have you listened to in your lifetime? Probably more than you can count, and no doubt there have been some outstanding ones and others that you don’t care to or simply don’t remember. As a presentation style, it’s been around for centuries, as this picture from the University of Bologna in the 1400s attests. Notice in the picture that the students in the back rows are falling asleep, so even in the Middle Ages the lecture format wasn’t exactly the most stimulating approach. It suggests that the presenter might have needed to improve his delivery (or perhaps that the students should have gone to bed earlier).

When someone decides to do a lecture, they often prepare by saying, "I'll begin by talking about this, then I'll talk about that, and then I'll finish by talking about this." The problem with this approach is that everything begins with "I'll talk." It assumes that simply by listening, the audience will be interested enough in what’s being said to actually learn something. This kind of delivery only gets worse when that same presenter reads the information on slides, the same information the audience can read for themselves.

A better approach to creating a presentation starts with the question: "What do I want my audience to learn?" It forces you to redefine your audience as learners, not listeners, and suddenly the focus is on their experience and not yours. If your goal is now to make sure they learn, you have to think about what you can do to ensure they grasp the concept, see how to solve the problem, or can perform the task you want them to master.

The way to make a scientific or technical presentation interesting is conveying the story behind the data. It’s not just pointing out the numbers; it’s sharing what makes the numbers significant or surprising. If there’s something in the findings that really excites you or disappoints you, that’s what the audience wants to hear so that they feel that same emotion. If they feel what you feel, they’re engaged rather than bored, and there’s a much better chance that they’re going to remember what you say.

Some people do an absolutely fantastic job of delivering lectures and they can hold an audience in the palm of their hand from beginning to end. The rest of us need to remember that the secret to delivering a great lecture is to start with your audience in mind. It’s not about you.

Often, people say in jest that they are able to tune out noise. But noise means different things to different people, and whether it’s background noise or white noise, our response to noise is subjective.

When does noise become problematic in a work environment? Are employees able to hear their coworkers give instructions about how to operate certain machinery, or are they forced to yell to communicate effectively?

To control noise exposure you need to quantify it, which is why noise measurement is an important component of the hearing conservation program. And before you can control noise, you need to be able to define it. Best practices state that noise levels should not exceed 85 decibels over an 8-hour day using a 3 dB exchange rate. The OSHA standard uses a 5 dB exchange rate. OSHA has a permissible exposure level (PEL) of 90 dB and an action level of 85 dB (both values are 8-hour time-weighted averages), and understanding the different regulatory requirements and best practices can be confusing to a new practitioner. In addition, taking noise measurements is not always straightforward. The technician needs to know the correct equipment, how to use it properly, and how to design an effective sampling scheme.

Recognizing a need for noise exposure assessment in the workplace, the Council for Accreditation in Occupational Hearing Conservation (CAOHC), along with additional subject matter experts, developed its Noise Measurement Course to provide a better understanding of noise exposure and how to address and lessen the risks of exposure for employees. While this course is not intended to make you an expert in acoustics or noise-control engineering, it will help you:

•understand the rationale and reasons why noise measurement is an important part of hearing conservation program (HCP) management and the critical importance of noise exposure information

•determine what kind of measurement equipment and measurement procedures are right for your project

•understand and differentiate between the various terms used to describe noise and noise exposure

Since AIHA is a component professional organization of CAOHC, the Noise Measurement Course is available to AIHA members at discount. The course includes access to all nine modules for six months, PDF versions of all PowerPoint presentations, module quizzes, and—upon successful completion of all quizzes—Continuing Education Units. If you are interested, please contact Marina Pappas or visit the CAOHC website for more information.

Chandran Achutan, PhD, CIH, is the vice-chair of CAOHC and secretary of the AIHA Noise Committee. He is an Associate Professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, College of Public Health, and one of several AIHA members who contributed to the development of the Noise Measurement Course.​

As a new AIHA staff member with no prior knowledge or experience in industrial hygiene, one of my primary tasks was to learn as much as possible, as quickly as possible, about the field. While reading The Synergist and exploring the AIHA website were helpful, to me the most practical option was to find an opportunity to observe an IH on the job. I happened to mention this to Elizabeth Pullen, an industrial hygienist with Clariant​, and she invited me to spend a day with her when she visited her company’s plant in Virginia.

On the day of my visit, Elizabeth was already meeting with Greg, the company’s safety manager, when I arrived. They were reviewing air sample test results for the company’s plants in North America. The spreadsheet they were using was populated with cumulative data, and they were paying particular attention to how the numbers for each plant had changed over time. It was readily apparent, even to a novice like me, that the steps that had been taken to reduce exposure levels at several sites had been effective, as indicated by the decline in chemicals detected in the samples.

After spending some time going through the data, they suggested we take a break and tour the factory. Outfitted with hard hats, safety glasses, and hearing protection, we stepped into the production area, paying attention to stay within marked pedestrian lanes. As we walked, Elizabeth and Greg described the various manufacturing processes that were taking place, and highlighted where measures had been taken to protect the workers. Dust collection devices were located next to tables and machinery where powdered chemicals were used, helping to keep extraneous particulate matter to a minimum. Safety rails and gates guarded against falling and mishaps with forklifts. Workers wearing nitrile gloves, respirators, or face shields greeted me as we passed by. At one workstation we saw where heavy bags had to be carried by hand from a pallet up a short flight of stairs. Greg suggested they look for a way to improve the ergonomics by raising the pallet to a height where the bags could be pulled onto a roller conveyor, lessening the stresses of repetitive heavy lifting and minimizing the potential for injury.

After the tour, we returned to the meeting room where a different spreadsheet was used to document the multitude of tasks performed by the workers at the plant. Individual employees joined us to talk about their duties in terms of preparation, performance, and cleanup. Potential hazards (anything from pinch points to toppled machinery to ergonomic stressors), preventive measures (respirators, PPEs, training, and so on), and opportunities for improvement were all identified and recorded. The discussions helped everyone think about what could potentially happen when, for example, driving a forklift in a high traffic area or cleaning machinery between uses. One employee described how he had to drive cautiously around a warehouse corner where it was difficult to see, and suggested that a convex mirror on the facing wall would improve the situation. A note to that effect was added to the spreadsheet, as were other ideas provided by workers.

At day’s end, Elizabeth explained to me that the summary data from these interviews would be provided to the plant manager so that opportunities for improvement could easily be identified and acted upon. I left with a much clearer understanding of how industrial hygienists use their knowledge and experience to document practices that help maintain and improve workers’ health.

On my desk sits a gift from a former co-worker: a coffee mug inscribed with a quote from Michelangelo—“I am still learning.” It’s a statement that carries meaning on many levels.

The first reaction is about the man himself. Michelangelo’s works are marvels of complexity, delicacy, nuance, and grandeur, and even though he produced enduring masterpieces in sculpture, painting, and architecture that represent the pinnacle of accomplishment, he felt he still had much to learn.

Have you ever known people whose credentials, accomplishments, and experience put them at the top of the profession, and yet if you were to talk with them on a personal level they would freely admit that they don’t know it all? It’s that spirit of curiosity, the innate desire to improve and to uncover new knowledge that drives many successful people. You’ll often hear those people say that the more they know, the more they realize they don’t know.

Part of the excitement of working in the world of associations is that when you change jobs you often move to an organization that represents a field of endeavor with which you’re unfamiliar. When I joined the staff of AIHA in January, it was with the knowledge that I would have a steep learning curve, not only in terms of the job itself but also in developing an understanding and appreciation of industrial hygiene. Fortunately, growing up in a family of chemical engineers has given me a tiny head start, and some aspects of the IH body of knowledge are familiar from my experience in working for a manufacturing-related organization. However, I fully acknowledge that I’ll never be a subject matter expert in IH. Instead, I have the opportunity and privilege of working with many people who are, and by combining our efforts we can hopefully accomplish some great things.

I also continue to learn about learning. The pace of modern society and the rapid introduction of new technologies not only affect the way we live and work, but also how, when, where, and what we learn. The challenge in leading AIHA’s education efforts is first defining what today’s industrial hygienists need to know in order to stay current on the latest developments and practices, and then understanding how those individuals go through their day, finding out when they have time to learn, and identifying ways to provide education in formats that work best for their situations. That requires staying current on the latest developments in content delivery. There isn’t a simple solution to formulating an education strategy. To borrow from instructional design methodology, it’s a process of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. In other words, listen first, then design and build, deliver, gather feedback, and use what you’ve learned to inform your next effort.

As I journey down this path, I will be sharing with you some of my observations as a newcomer to the field of industrial hygiene as well as some of my thoughts as we create new education opportunities for AIHA members. If you have ideas or insights that you’d like to discuss, I look forward to talking with you about them. After all, I’m still learning.